Introduction: Community Development and Social Capital

Abstract

This set of papers on social capital collectively raises very interesting theoretical, methodological, and applied questions about concept and its application. Not surprisingly, they do not resolve those questions, although they provide some useful directions for future research and for applied community development work. Bridger and Alter, in lead article in this issue, examine state of both urban and rural communities and potential for progressive community development outcomes in those communities by enveloping political economy analysis within Wilkinson's interactional framework. They examine effects of global capitalism on U.S. communities and neighborhoods, identifying growing spatial, class, and ethnic inequalities, as well as contrasting leveling effect of telecommunications revolution. All of these patterns, they argue, militate against community social capital as an engine of change for place-based community development. In effect, Bridger and Alter answer question, Do communities act?, in negative, as does Wilkinson, who provides inspiration for their work: [C]ommunity development, when it occurs, is one part of larger process of community change. Ecological, organizational, situational, and other forces converge to structure and alter relationships among people in a local setting, and random events also bring turbulence to local arena. Given this it would be an error to say that the community in any literal sense, even in situations where community actions might occur. Instead, people act, and their actions connect with acts of others to form action [social] fields (1991, p. 92). Bridger and Alter argue that an interactionist perspective provides a better basis for understanding efforts to promote community development than does a perspective focusing on social capital, and that, given all cross-cutting loyalties of community residents and openness of community boundaries, such perspective provides basis for progressive change without necessity of trust (a central feature of social capital, since at least a minimal level of trust must exist to achieve higher degrees of social capital). Another way of stating question is as follows: is progressive community development (what Wilkinson, 1991, calls community field, a special case of social field) a result of enduring patterns of relationships (trust, stable although changing networks, norms of reciprocity) or does it usually arise from structures of shifting interaction involving local and extra-local actors responding primarily to external forces on community? Or does progressive generalized community and neighborhood development sometimes fit one of these perspectives and other times other? The other three social capital articles in this issue suggest that communities can and sometimes do act. Agnitsch et al., state it this way: Although question 'Do communities act?' has long been of great interest to community sociologists, answer today is, 'They better act,' citing declining support for community-level improvement from state and federal sources (p. 37, this volume). Emery and Flora agree with Bridger and Alter that social capital is not key to explaining why community development is successful in certain communities and not in others; nor do they believe that financial capital is key. Rather, it is combination and integration of different kinds of capital that is central for understanding community change. Social capital is indeed an important link in that chain, but not only one. They argue that it is important to address political capital separate from social capital to insure that political power is treated explicitly. They introduce idea of an upward or downward spiral of capitals, reminiscent of Myrdal's concept of cumulative causation, but they see social capital as a glue or ligament for holding other kinds of capital together in a purposeful chain. …